Most mechanistic models conveniently adopt the classic economic model of profit-maximizing firms. However, in reality and even when a long-term unitary strategy exists, managers often pursue several and at times inconsistent goals and objectives. In particular, tensions arise between profitability and growth and between short-term and long-term performance. What are the implications of using multiple and partly inconsistent performance criteria in both empirical research and strategic management models? How do we treat a firm’s actions that may be appropriate for the short run and not the long run or conversely? These issues, and particularly the temporal tension between static and dynamic efficiency, are central to the practice of strategic management and should get a more central stage in strategy research and in strategic thinking.
These research directions are but a few of those that can build on the organic perspective. A sustained effort in each of them is likely to enhance progress on the field’s core questions. Many aspects of the organic perspective are contained in earlier studies such as Chandler’s (1962). Several recent studies too, such as Garud and Van de Ven’s (1992) on internal corporate venturing, Levinthal and Myatt’s (1994) on competencies and competition, Rindova and Fombrun’s (1999) interactive model of competitive advantage, and Holbrook et al.’s (2000) on the evolution of firms’ differences, nicely illustrate the perspective’s content and spirit. If successful, these individual contributions and other new research can become an integral part of a more unified and better-attuned organic perspective on strategy research, teaching, and practice.
Almost from its inception, the strategy field has to a great extent relied on a mechanistic perspective on strategy. This perspective, unified by an epistemologically coherent base, has gradually moved out of alignment with its context. The advent of organic developments, in turn, has brought better external alignment but not a unified approach. The proposed organic perspective relies on the three I’s (incessant, interactive, and integrated) instead of the three D’s (discrete, directional, and differentiated) and addresses the field’s core issues in unison. It therefore builds on the strengths of the two prior developments: it better harmonizes strategic models and constructs with one another, and with the new realities.
I thank the anonymous reviewers of the paper for their constructive and thoughtful comments. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the Fourth Conference on Competence-Based Competition (Oslo, Norway). I thank the conference participants as well as Ron Sanchez, Eli Segev, and Gerda Kessler for their contributions to the development of the paper.
Academy of Management Annual Meetings. 1997. Special session on strategy process research. Boston,
MA.
Adam B. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Polity Press: Cambridge, U.K.
Aldrich EH. 1999. Organizations Evolving. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Allport GW. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality. Holt Rinehart & Winston: New York.
Amburgey TL, Dacin T. 1994. As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal 37(6): 1427–1452.
Andrews KR. 1971. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Dow Jones-Irwin: New York.
Ansoff HI. 1984. Implanting Strategic Management. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Argyris C, Schon DA. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Arieli D, Zakai D. 2001. A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica 108(2): 187–207.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.